[rabbitmq-discuss] Alternative to "immediate" in RabbitMQ 3.x

Chris stuff at moesel.net
Mon Oct 21 20:52:23 BST 2013

Hi All,

We have a perfect use case for the immediate flag now, but just discovered
it was deprecated in RabbitMQ 3.x.  Oops.

We considered the suggested alternative of using a message TTL of 0 and
dead-letter exchanges, but ran into these two issues:

   - If x-message-ttl is set to 0 on the queue, then what *should be* a
   message-specific option now effects every message on the queue.  This isn't
   acceptable for us.
   - If expiration is set to 0 on a message, the message will not be
   dead-lettered until it gets to the head of the queue (which could be a *
   long* time).

We need to support scenarios where the publisher chooses on a
message-by-message basis if the message should be "immediate".

The best I can come up with is splitting every queue into two queues now--
one that has x-message-ttl set to 0 and one that doesn't, and each consumer
would need to consume from *both* queues.  And publishers would need to
specify different routing keys based on if they want "immediate" or not...
 I don't really like this idea much.

Question #1: Is there some other way of doing it that I'm not thinking of?

Question #2: Has there been any thought to supporting "immediate" again?
 Or is it definitely a thing of the past?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rabbitmq.com/pipermail/rabbitmq-discuss/attachments/20131021/53e2cf86/attachment.htm>

More information about the rabbitmq-discuss mailing list